HKSAR v. Lam Chi Shing
|
DCCC 240/2013 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 240 OF 2013 ----------------------
--------------------- Reasons for Verdict --------------------- 1.Defendant, you pleaded not guilty to one offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs, contrary to sections 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap.134. 2.However, you did indicate and that was confirmed in the evidence that you were ultimately to give that you accepted and admitted simple possession of dangerous drugs in the amount quantified within the charge. 3.The prosecution case and indeed the prosecution opening was embodied in the admitted facts, which were produced to the court as P1 and read into evidence under section 65C of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap.221. 4.In essence, what was said was that at about 7.30 pm on 6 December of last year, PC 5269 (PW1) and other officers were on duty at Deep Bay Road, Lau Fau Shan, Tin Shui Wai, when a private car approached and parked next to a container. The police approached and you stood next to the car. PW1 revealed his police identity and proceeded to investigate.5.At about 7.33 pm you were searched and in the front right-hand pocket of your trousers were found four plastic bags of suspected ketamine (Exhibit 1). Just to make it clear, the drugs themselves were not produced to the court. By agreement, a photograph was produced, which is actually P3. 6.You were arrested and cautioned and elected to remain silent. You were found in possession of $1,500 and two mobile phones. 7.Searches of the car and your home revealed nothing suspicious. 8.Subsequent analysis of the contents of the plastic bags revealed them to contain 52.83 grammes of powder containing 41.42 grammes of ketamine. The estimated street value based on the price per gramme was $6,392.9.Also produced was a plan of the scene, which was P2. For the record, that was not translated, but by agreement with defence and the court accepting it, the police officer in the case did interpret the various Chinese characters. 10.The prosecution case was then closed. 11.Mr Davies made a short and very proper submission of no case to answer and Mr Turnbull responded. 12.I rejected that submission and found there was a case to answer. Prosecution had established a prima facie case for reasons which I have already given and do not intend to repeat. 13.You, having had your rights explained to you fully by Mr Davies, elected to give evidence but to call no defence witnesses. 14.The gist of your evidence was that you took ketamine on a daily basis, taking approximately 3 to 4 grammes. You spent approximately $4,000 per month of the $11,000 that you earned on the purchase of ketamine. 15.You have a previous conviction for possession of ketamine. 16.You said that on the day of your arrest you had phoned your supplier, driven to a nearby roundabout where you had met him and purchased the dangerous drugs found in your possession for $2,300. 17.You had returned to your workplace, where you secreted them. You did this so that your family did not discover the dangerous drugs. 18.You then went home, returning at the time when you were seen by the police and your intention being to take dangerous drugs. 19.However, before you could do so, you were arrested. 20.You said that the dangerous drugs found upon you were for self-consumption. You denied any intention at all to sell them. Whilst you fully admitted being in possession of the drugs, you denied trafficking. 21.You were cross-examined by Mr Turnbull and, despite Mr Turnbull’s best efforts, you remained unshaken as to your explanation, though I do confess that some of your replies were difficult to understand. 22.Defence case was then closed and neither Mr Turnbull nor Mr Davies made final submissions, the issues being entirely clear. 23.I turn now to the verdict. 24.The charge against you is one in trafficking in dangerous drugs. The prosecution are not assisted by any presumptions. They have to prove that you intended to traffic, in a technical sense, in the drugs, beyond all reasonable doubt. 25.The prosecution case amounted to this. 26.You were found standing by your mother’s car. In possession was four packets of suspected ketamine. Later, the examination revealed this to be approximately 42 grammes of ketamine. Your car had been searched and nothing suspicious found, as at your home. 27.The ketamine was in four plastic bags. In your possession was found $1,500 and two mobile phones. 28.Mr Turnbull suggested that it was rather suspicious that you paid only $2,300 for ketamine which was valued at over $6,000. 29.Your explanation for this was that you were buying it from your regular supplier and also I take into account that you were buying in bulk. 30.Whilst I remain suspicious of your acts and some of your evidence was rather bizarre, I cannot say beyond all reasonable doubt that you were in possession of those drugs for the purpose of trafficking. Your explanation that they were for your own consumption could well be correct. There is really nothing beyond the quantity and the packing to suggest guilt. 31.I do suggest to the prosecution they should look more carefully at these types of cases to see what the evidence amounts to. 32.The case, not being proved beyond all reasonable doubt, is therefore dismissed. 33.However, on the evidence and on your own admission, I do convict you of simple possession of dangerous drugs.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Further hearings and rulings under DCCC 240/2013